Let me start this post by stating an over-riding view which is that, despite a number of frustrations, this is the best PC game I have ever played. Clearly there are still areas to be looked at, and I would regard Diplomacy as one of the most important here, but it is more than possible to get immersed in a good game.
Although I now have a reasonable grasp of the mechanics, mine is still very much an untutored opinion and I would be grateful for the views of those more expert on a matter which is causing me some concern, ie game balance. I'm thinking particularly of the balance between the effects of military and non-military actions. In the latter category, I would include Diplomacy, Events and Political choices.
There is no doubt that this latter category brings a great deal of richness to the game and is a vital component, but I am beginning to question its influence on the course of play. I have a lot of admiration for the minds which developed these original concepts for the boardgame and imagine that these areas presented a significant challenge in the conversion to the PC.
Additionally, it may well be that bugs in the various calculations have over-emphasised the significance of non-military events and that the ongoing patches will improve things. However, all the while that a whole slew of AI events and politics can reduce powers such as GB and France from a relatively healthy NW to revolution in one phase does for me raise an issue of balance.
Bern